[Omah]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Can you not answer a simple question?
What would your advice be, report the abuse from 83 or forget it?

What "abuse"?

The 9-year-old who is now 39 tears old alleges that she was "touched" some time between January 1, 1983 and December 31, 1983

If she wants to take it to Crown Court where she will be subject to scrutiny and cross-examination on such apparently flimsy "evidence", that's up to her, but I've sat as a juror on a very similar case and the verdict went against the plaintiff, so I would suggest that either more concrete "evidence" be found or she drop the charge .....

If Hall is found "Not Guilty" he may well go after some serious "damages" - can she or her family meet those costs?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Omah

What "abuse"?

The 9-year-old who is now 39 tears old alleges that she was "touched" some time between January 1, 1983 and December 31, 1983

If she wants to take it to Crown Court where she will be subject to scrutiny and cross-examination on such apparently flimsy "evidence", that's up to her, but I've sat as a juror on a very similar case and the verdict went against the plaintiff, so I would suggest that either more concrete "evidence" be found or she drop the charge .....

If Hall is found "Not Guilty" he may well go after some serious "damages" - can she or her family meet those costs?

Would it have gone to crown court if there was zero evidence?

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Would it have gone to crown court if there was zero evidence?

It's gone to Crown Court because of the nature of the alleged offence and those associated with it .....

In the case I sat on, the "evidence" was merely that of the little girl, who said she had been "touched" by a man (as, apparently, in this case) but she turned out to be a liar who was protecting her mother's pornographer boyfriend who WAS her sexual abuser .....

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Omah

It's gone to Crown Court because of the nature of the alleged offence and those associated with it .....

In the case I sat on, the "evidence" was merely that of the little girl, who said she had been "touched" by a man (as, apparently, in this case) but she turned out to be a liar who was protecting her mother's pornographer boyfriend who WAS her sexual abuser .....

So to be fair she was not lying, she was bein assaulted.... Abusers use threats as a form of control, to seek help then panic and blame someone else is something that happens in these cases.

No matter how old you are 19, 19, 39, 59 if you were assaulted, molested or abused as a child my advice would be to report it.